From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10376 invoked by alias); 11 Jun 2002 20:28:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10347 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2002 20:28:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zwingli.cygnus.com) (208.245.165.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 2002 20:28:42 -0000 Received: by zwingli.cygnus.com (Postfix, from userid 442) id 1875A5EA11; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:28:41 -0500 (EST) To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: test macro scoping References: <20020522041427.CE78E5EA11@zwingli.cygnus.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2 I've committed this patch, with changes for the recent `show macro' -> `info macro' renaming. As mentioned below, it introduces 23 new known failures (gdb/555). Jim Blandy writes: > Here is a revision of this patch, using names based on `macscp' > instead of `macros'. `macros' was supposed to stand for `macro > scoping', but it really just looks like the plural of `macro'. I'm > planning to post patches for macro expansion (`macexp') and macro > commands (`maccmd'), so the name `macscp' fits better. > > There are no other differences between this patch and its predecessor. > > Jim Blandy writes: > > > This test only checks GDB's ability to figure out which macros are in > > scope where. (`macros' is supposed to be an abbreviation for `macro > > scope'; should I rename these to `macrosc?' I need a spot for > > the file number...) > > > > This introduces about 23 new failures. They reflect a genuine bug, > > but one that will take a lot of work to fix. If I understand the > > conventions correctly, such bugs are supposed to be marked with > > "setup_kfail", with a reference to a GDB PR describing the bug, > > commented out. So I've filed gdb/555, and marked the failing tests > > attributable to that bug accordingly. If this isn't right, please set > > me straight. > > > > More tests will be forthcoming for the macro commands and macro > > expansion. > > > > 2002-05-21 Jim Blandy > > > > * macros.exp, macros1.c, macros2.h, macros3.h, macros4.h: New > > tests.